Why Is the US Military Rationing Meals? They Have a $770 Billion Budget. What’s Going On?

[Mushroom]

With all due respect, you are a ground pounder and not a naval warfare expert. The Brits have two fairly capable aircraft carriers now.

Neither one a CATOBAR. And no real AWAC capability.

That is a lot of what bit them in the butt in the Falklands, and they knew it even then.

 

[Mushroom]

Two carriers without air groups.

Heck, I loved how much like China they were there.

The Illustrious was in service until 2014, yet they had already retired all of their Harriers in 2010. So literally they had a carrier for 4 years, with no aircraft to fly from it.

The new ships are an improvement over the Invincible class, but not enough. Let us really hope they are never needed.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Neither one a CATOBAR. And no real AWAC capability.

That is a lot of what bit them in the butt in the Falklands, and they knew it even then.

I love your term "CATOBAR", which was never used in my Navy career. You do realize that our Navy aircraft can interface with AWACS and NATO AWACS, right?

Our LHDs and LHAs also have no CATOBAR or AWACS with the F-35B.

 

[22lcidw]

Yes, and it can barely do that.

A helicopter does not have the range, speed, or service ceiling to make a good AWAC bird. Sure, it is better than nothing. But it comes nowhere even close to the "real deal".

So each decade, the US is pulling farther away from the UK in Naval Aviation capability. And to be honest, the more I see that happen the less I give a fig and see them as a "has-been" empire that is largely resting on it's laurels.

And the irony is, the Royal Navy after the Falklands realized that a major flaw in their defenses was their reliance upon an older generation Sea King for AWAC duties. Among them was the service ceiling (which limits how far out they can detect threats), range, speed, and loiter ability. They lost a lot of ships because they were in reality able to provide little to no AWAC capability to their fleet.

And their solution? Why, just continue to use helicopters. I guess they just assume that if "WWIII" was to ever start, they could rely on the US to pull their arses out of the fire with real AWAC aircraft. And real carriers. So they can continue to play with "bathtub toys". I know if I was in the Commonwealth of Nations, I would be getting more and more nervous every year.

The way we speak of our "special relationship" with Britain we would probably get involved in a conflict they get into. We always show the Royal Family when an event happens. No other nations royalty gets coverage. There is an economic, financial and stock market tie ins with a district called "The City" within London.

 

[Mushroom]

I love your term "CATOBAR", which was never used in my Navy career. You do realize that our Navy aircraft can interface with AWACS and NATO AWACS, right?

Our LHDs and LHAs also have no CATOBAR or AWACS with the F-35B.

It was not in use then either, but it is the accepted term used today.

And yes, I am fully aware of that. But once again, that is the F-35B, not the more capable F-35C. You see, I am aware of the differences.

I am also aware that you are not going to be able to land or have take off from one of those carriers anything like the C-2 Greyhound, or the E-2 Hawkeye.

Plus, an LHA and LHD is not a "carrier". The aircraft they carry are intended to give the Amphibious Group a basic CAP, when not doing their primary role of CAS. The aircraft are primarily for support of the Marines if they have to go ashore, and a secondary role is defense of the fleet. They are not an offensive arm. And if sent into a "high threat" area, they will most likely be operating with a Carrier Group, which does have AWAC.

Even this "ground pounder" is aware of that.

 

[Mushroom]

The way we speak of our "special relationship" with Britain we would probably get involved in a conflict they get into.

Will we?

We sure as hell did not during the Falklands War.

 

[Mushroom]

BTW, it was the USS Guam LPH-9 that the US considered lending the Brits.

No, it was the LPH-2 USS Iwo Jima.

While publicly claiming neutrality between Argentina and the U.K. during the 1982 Falklands War, President Ronald Reagan’s administration had developed plans to loan a ship to the Royal Navy if it lost one of its aircraft carriers in the war, former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26.

Lehman and then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger agreed to support U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with the loan of the amphibious warship USS Iwo Jima, he said.

“We agreed that [Weinberger] would tell the President that we planned to handle all these requests routinely without going outside existing Navy channels,” Lehman said in a speech provided to the U.S. Naval Institute he made in Portsmouth, U.K. “We would ‘leave the State Department, except for [Secretary of State Al] Haig, out of it.’”

Reagan approved the request without hesitation and his instructions to Weinberger had been simple, “Give Maggie everything she needs to get on with it,” Lehman said in the speech.

Reagan Readied U.S. Warship for '82 Falklands War - USNI News

While publicly claiming neutrality between Argentina and the U.K. during the 1982 Falklands War, President Ronald Reagan’s administration had developed plans to loan a ship to the Royal Navy if it lost one of its aircraft carriers in the war, former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, told...

news.usni.org

As reported by a recent U.S. Naval Institute newsletter, according to Lehman, both he and then Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger agreed to support U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with the loan of amphibious warship USS Iwo Jima: “We agreed that (Weinberger) would tell the president that we planned to handle all of these requests routinely without going outside existing Navy channels.”

USS Iwo Jima would have been loaned to the Royal Navy if the British had lost one of their capital ships during the Falklands War

During the 1982 Falklands War (Malvinas for the Argentine people) the U.S. publicly claimed neutrality. But in secret, President Ronald Reagan’s

theaviationist.com

And just out of curiosity, I did look up if the USS Guam had been considered. But every reference pointed right back to the Iwo, and never mentioned the Guam.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It was not in use then either, but it is the accepted term used today.

And yes, I am fully aware of that. But once again, that is the F-35B, not the more capable F-35C. You see, I am aware of the differences.

I am also aware that you are not going to be able to land or have take off from one of those carriers anything like the C-2 Greyhound, or the E-2 Hawkeye.

Plus, an LHA and LHD is not a "carrier". The aircraft they carry are intended to give the Amphibious Group a basic CAP, when not doing their primary role of CAS. The aircraft are primarily for support of the Marines if they have to go ashore, and a secondary role is defense of the fleet. They are not an offensive arm. And if sent into a "high threat" area, they will most likely be operating with a Carrier Group, which does have AWAC.

Even this "ground pounder" is aware of that.

The C-2 Greyhound and E-2 Hawkeye are on the way out. The C-2 is being replaced by the Osprey. The E-2 is rumored to be eventually replaced by a unmanned drone version.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, it was the LPH-2 USS Iwo Jima.

Reagan Readied U.S. Warship for '82 Falklands War - USNI News

While publicly claiming neutrality between Argentina and the U.K. during the 1982 Falklands War, President Ronald Reagan’s administration had developed plans to loan a ship to the Royal Navy if it lost one of its aircraft carriers in the war, former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, told...

news.usni.org

USS Iwo Jima would have been loaned to the Royal Navy if the British had lost one of their capital ships during the Falklands War

During the 1982 Falklands War (Malvinas for the Argentine people) the U.S. publicly claimed neutrality. But in secret, President Ronald Reagan’s

theaviationist.com

And just out of curiosity, I did look up if the USS Guam had been considered. But every reference pointed right back to the Iwo, and never mentioned the Guam.

USS Guam was an Iwo Jima class.

 

[HenryBHough]

Simple enough. Xiden's masters so hate having America strong that they are starving our troops.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Will we?

We sure as hell did not during the Falklands War.

Will we?

We sure as hell did not during the Falklands War.

We fed them intelligence and AIM 9s from our war stockpiles. The Brit Sidewinders were older models that weren't as capable of all aspect interceptions.

 

[Dayton3]

The C-2 Greyhound and E-2 Hawkeye are on the way out. The C-2 is being replaced by the Osprey. The E-2 is rumored to be eventually replaced by a unmanned drone version.

I've heard that with the ability of future AWACs platforms to data link with the ships that the importance of having manned controllers on hand aboard them has been greatly reduced.

 

[Mushroom]

USS Guam was an Iwo Jima class.

I am aware of that. But you insisted it was the USS Guam and not the USS Iwo Jima.

Notice, not one of my references ever says "Iwo Jima Class", they all specifically state the USS Iwo Jima. The oldest ship of that class. The USS Guam at that time was one of the newer ships.

General rule of thumb, the US does not lend out it's "best and newest", not even to the UK. They loan out their older ships and equipment.

 

[Mushroom]

The E-2 is rumored to be eventually replaced by a unmanned drone version.

Oh, I doubt that will happen any time soon.

They only started accepting the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye in 2010. I can't see them within the next decade or two throwing those away for something else. And they have already built 46 out of 75 planes they have purchased.

And France recently purchased the E-2D also, to replace their older E-2 series aircraft.

Even Japan has not purchased 9 of the E-2D. India is looking at buying 6 E-2D for their Navy.

Sorry, as much as I hear people talking about "going to drones", I just don't see that happening. Especially in the much more conservative Navy. Of all branches, they tend to take more of a "wait and see" approach to new technology, when they can. And like many, I do not see drones ever being a major part in any military force.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Oh, I doubt that will happen any time soon.

They only started accepting the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye in 2010. I can't see them within the next decade or two throwing those away for something else. And they have already built 46 out of 75 planes they have purchased.

And France recently purchased the E-2D also, to replace their older E-2 series aircraft.

Even Japan has not purchased 9 of the E-2D. India is looking at buying 6 E-2D for their Navy.

Sorry, as much as I hear people talking about "going to drones", I just don't see that happening. Especially in the much more conservative Navy. Of all branches, they tend to take more of a "wait and see" approach to new technology, when they can. And like many, I do not see drones ever being a major part in any military force.

The reason the E-2D can be replaced by drones is that there is no reason for an aircraft to be put in harm's way. When the radar equipment and computers can be safely placed in a remotely piloted aircraft with much longer range and greater endurance, why use a manned aircraft? They can also be used as tankers.

 

[Mushroom]

When the radar equipment and computers can be safely placed in a remotely piloted aircraft with much longer range and greater endurance, why use a manned aircraft?

Electronic counter-measures.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I am aware of that. But you insisted it was the USS Guam and not the USS Iwo Jima.

Notice, not one of my references ever says "Iwo Jima Class", they all specifically state the USS Iwo Jima. The oldest ship of that class. The USS Guam at that time was one of the newer ships.

General rule of thumb, the US does not lend out it's "best and newest", not even to the UK. They loan out their older ships and equipment.

Wikipedia disagrees with you, as well as other sources I have read. That is all I am pointing out.

Electronic counter-measures.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[Mushroom]

Wikipedia disagrees with you, as well as other sources I have read. That is all I am pointing out.

"Wikipedia disagrees with me"?

Oh my goodness, I am heartbroken!

Tell me, what did we sent the UK before the US entered WWII?

I can tell you now, it was not Benham, Mahan, Porter, or even Farragut class Destroyers. Those were Post-WWI era Destroyers.

What we sent were the Wickes and Clemson class Destroyers, old WWI era hulks that had been sitting in storage for decades.

We sent them some "Escort Carriers", specifically our earliest ones. Converted from cargo ship, most started life as C3 Cargo ships. And those are what we experimented on and then sent to the UK as we perfected the concept and later built ones specifically for that purpose.

But please tell me, where exactly in "Wikipedia" does it say we were sending the UK the best of our ships?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

If you can not see a connection between ECM and drones, I literally have nothing to say. I can not believe you are that ignorant, so you are only being obtuse.

I will not insult you by responding, because I actually expect better from you than that.

 

[Mushroom]

Oh, and here is a great video from the UK about some of the ships the Royal Navy is picking up.



Notice at around 29 seconds in, you can see some of the ships they are getting quite clearly.

DD-108, the USS Williams (1918). DD-162, the USS Thatcher (1918). And DD-175, USS Mackenzie (1918). All of those are Wickes class Destroyers.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"Wikipedia disagrees with me"?

Oh my goodness, I am heartbroken!

Tell me, what did we sent the UK before the US entered WWII?

I can tell you now, it was not Benham, Mahan, Porter, or even Farragut class Destroyers. Those were Post-WWI era Destroyers.

What we sent were the Wickes and Clemson class Destroyers, old WWI era hulks that had been sitting in storage for decades.

We sent them some "Escort Carriers", specifically our earliest ones. Converted from cargo ship, most started life as C3 Cargo ships. And those are what we experimented on and then sent to the UK as we perfected the concept and later built ones specifically for that purpose.

But please tell me, where exactly in "Wikipedia" does it say we were sending the UK the best of our ships?



If you can not see a connection between ECM and drones, I literally have nothing to say. I can not believe you are that ignorant, so you are only being obtuse.

I will not insult you by responding, because I actually expect better from you than that.

Where did I say anything about sending them our best? You really should not be drinking while posting!

I have probably forgotten more on this topic than a ground pounder ever knew. Don't call me ignorant! I was an electronics technician while enlisted and a fire control radar officer and my watch station was as a Missile Engagement Controller. I graduated from the TAO School just prior to the Gulf War. I was the only O-3 on my ship allowed to stand that watch, even though I was a propulsion engineer.

Now, lay your dick on the table so it can be smacked so hard that it might swell up to match a 5 year old.